The Persistence of Fiscal Fantasy

It's time to get serious about government spending.

If the national fiscal crisis has accomplished nothing else, it has finally restored the good name of Ebenezer Scrooge. Frugal government, traditionally a contradiction in terms, has become a national ideal—as well as a national necessity. At last, Americans and their leaders recognize the need to justify every dollar spent.

Congress and the president recently agreed on a debt ceiling deal that consists entirely of cuts in outlays, not tax increases. A supercommittee of Congress will try to come up with additional ways to reduce the deficit, and failure will trigger large, automatic budget cuts amounting to $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

Even President Obama, who has labored heroically to acquaint the public with the meaning of the word "trillion," has changed course. His budget director is asking all federal agencies to submit plans to cut their projected spending by a full 10 percent in 2013.

The good news is that the idea of serious spending restraint has more support than ever before. The bad news is that getting people to support the concept is easy. The hard part is getting beyond the concept, and there is no sign so far of doing that.

Several Republican presidential candidates, including Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, have taken what sounds like an uncompromising stand. They've signed on to a plan sponsored by a group called Strong America Now to eliminate the federal deficit by 2017 without tax increases.

But the plan is not a plan. It's a fantasy. As Strong America Now's website explains, it is supposed to "detect and eliminate 25 percent of spending per year across the federal government." Per year. Seriously.

Not only that, but those cuts are supposed to excise nothing but vast quantities of waste—rather than programs that actual people care about. And my impression is that we'll pay for it all by raffling off unicorn rides and following leprechauns to find pots of gold.

The GOP's budget star is Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who has specific plans to revamp the big entitlement programs that take up such an outsized share of federal obligations. What no one seems to have noticed is that even his controversial "Roadmap for America's Future" does little to rein in spending in the foreseeable future.

In fact, it would boost federal spending from 21.6 percent of gross domestic product in 2012 to 22 percent in 2016, 23.2 percent in 2026 and 24.1 percent in 2036. Not until 2051—40 years from now—would outlays drop below the 2012 level. As a result, the total debt would climb to 100 percent of GDP by 2043, a 50 percent increase.

This brand of thrift is perfectly attuned to public sentiment, which is for spending reductions in general and against them in particular. A January Gallup poll found that in only one area did a majority of citizens favor spending less federal money. The area? Foreign aid.

One reason Americans think they want big budget cuts is that they don't know what they'd be cutting. Most think foreign aid accounts for 10 percent of the budget, compared to the true figure of about 1 percent.

They also imagine that public broadcasting consumes 5 percent—when the reality is one-fiftieth that amount. They think federal employee pension costs are triple what they actually are.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid soak up some 40 percent of the budget, and their share will expand as baby boomers sidle off into retirement. But in an April Economist/YouGov survey, only 7 percent of Americans—including just 9 percent of Republicans—favored lower funding for Social Security. Medicare? Also 7 percent, with 11 percent of Republicans agreeing.

Even the rise of the Tea Party and the fight over the debt ceiling have not caused people to come to grips with fiscal reality. An August Economist/YouGov poll found that 56 percent of Americans said we can bring spending under control without reductions in Social Security and Medicare. Only 24 percent admit what every fiscal expert knows.

Maybe the looming consequences of huge federal deficits will finally force the American public and their elected officials to sober up and agree on painful cuts in popular programs. But no one ever lost money betting on the opposite.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The hard part is getting beyond the concept, and there is no sign so far of doing that.

    I knew they weren't serious about it from the beginning. S&P knew it too.

    And the first time I heard Patty Murray was going to be on the deficit commission, my first thought was "I think it's time we let Ol' Painless out the bag."

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Patty Murray - Bachelor's in Phys Ed and a preschool teacher. She's obviously the right choice for a committee devising what certainly will be a long and complicated bill involving arcane tax rules and budgets.

  • MNG||

    "Bachelor's in Phys Ed and a preschool teacher"

    Elitist!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I will not deny it. I prefer my authoritarian government representatives to have more intellectual capability than your average PE teacher. I will give Ms. Murray more credit than I give to Congressman Hank Johnson though:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

  • MNG||

    But maybe a PE teacher is exactly the kind of leader who can whip this nation back into sound fiscal shape?

  • ||

    Follow that by annihilating any and all positions of power that give anybody any sort of control whatsoever over money in government.

  • ||

    I was thinking that a preschool teacher would have experience dealing with the kinds of minds one finds in Congress.....

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Probably true, but as I recall, a key lesson from preschool/kindergarten was don't take things that don't belong to you. Seems nobody in Congress ever learned that one.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Scruffy, preschool/kindergarten teachers spend much more time teaching the children to share and to behave.

    In fact, preschool/kindergarten teachers are really just institutional nannies, which is great training for the leadership of a nanny state.

  • ||

    Hay!! I recent that!

  • Contrarian P||

    +1

  • Realist||

    Yeah, a kick ass dyke.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    But maybe a PE teacher is exactly the kind of leader who can whip this nation back into sound fiscal shape?


    Maybe - not her, though. She's a government barnacle.

  • ||

    Wasn't she first elected to the Senate in 1992, the year dubbed by the nags as "the year of the women"?

  • ||

    She's also the brainiac who, after 9/11, said bin Laden was popular in Afghanistan because he had built "day-care centers." You know, to take care of the kids when the women drive off to their jobs.

  • ||

    [But maybe a PE teacher is exactly the kind of leader who can whip this nation back into sound fiscal shape?]

    Worth a shot. Look what a neighborhood organizer has done.

  • Jeffrey||

    No, she would probably just ban all contact sports.

  • ||

    Let me sneak this into the top comment:

    Please think every part of this plan through; I've worked on it for several years.

    1. All persons residing in the U.S. shall come together in “tax units”. Members need not be related, need not reside together, and a tax unit may consist of as few as one person.
    2. Each year congress shall set a "minimum wage" and a "tax rate".
    3. The following shall not be subject to taxation:
    • An amount equal to a year's earnings (2000 hours) at the minimum wage, for each adult (age 20-65), decreasing 10% per year to 50% at age 15, and increasing 10% per year to 150% at age 70.
    • All payments for necessary health care including medical care, pharmaceuticals prescribed by a health care professional, vision and hearing aids, and fees for health-enhancing entities such as gyms. Health care insurance premiums may be deducted but not health care expense paid for by such insurance.
    • All educational expenses including day care for children or legally incompetent persons, the portion of state and local taxes used for education, and tuition, fees and educational materials for private school education, including that portion of parochial school tuition and other expenses going for non-sectarian education.
    • All income saved into an account for investments; withdrawals from this account for the benefit of any member of the tax unit shall be reported as income.
    4. The "tax rate" shall be applied to any income greater than the deductions listed above, regardless of amount.
    5. Any municipality having greater than 100,000 inhabitants or any state may impose on their citizens a surtax which shall be applied the same as the Federal tax.
    6. Tax units whose deductions exceed income, shall be paid a sum equal to the tax rate multiplied by the shortfall in income.
    7. There shall be no federal tax on corporations or other business entities.
    8. The Office of Management and Budget shall compute revenues to be expected using the newly set tax rate and minimum wage, applied to the previous year's reported incomes. No expenses in excess of that amount may be made without approval by 75% of each house of Congress. This tax shall be the only source of revenue for the federal government.

  • Mocking Bird||

    Maybe the looming consequences of agriculture depleting the soil and industrial civilization depleting resources will finally force the American public and their elected officials to sober up and agree on painful cuts.

    It's what every peak oil and permaculture expert knows.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    C- Try harder

  • White Laplander||

    I had assumed this was just White Indian in drag, in which case it gets an A for consistency and an F- for relevance. (Or is it an A there too because it is consistently irrelevant?)

  • Mocking Bird||

    All I did was take lines from the article and change a few words. Isn't turn-about fair play?

    The Persistence of [Ecological] Fantasy: It's time to get serious about [soil fertility and resource depletion.]

    See how fun it is?

    Mother Earth's ecology is too an economy that needs considered, before the human race commits suicides from improper accounting of all essential balance-of-nature sheets.

    Why can't people who have figured out that fiat money and deficit spending are a scam do the same with an even more important issue - that most of what civilization provides is a temporary boom that, like fiat money, ends in doom and gloom?

  • Almanian||

    *yawn*

    Wow - you're still an idiot.

    That is all.

  • ||

    Anybody against fiat money and deficit spending, by definition, is less of an idiot than one who goes rah-rah over the pledge of allegiance or TSA or affirmative action or the NLRB or the FBI or the CIA, etc.

  • anon||

    lol @ blatant admission of straw man trolling. F.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Mother Earth's ecology is too an economy that needs considered


    The imbecile does not understand what "economy" means.

    Hey, White Imbecile: Change your diapers and put them in a trash can, or people are going to think you're a diabled hoarder.

  • Mother Earth's Economy||

    Another etymological lesson for a bitter old man:

    eco•logy - Gk. oikos "house, dwelling place, habitation" + -logia "study of"

    eco•nomy - Gk. oikos "house, dwelling place, habitation" + nomos "managing," from nemein "manage"

  • sevo||

    "Maybe the looming consequences of agriculture depleting the soil and industrial civilization depleting resources will finally force the American public and their elected officials to sober up and agree on painful cuts."

    Or maybe the unicorn shortage.

  • Mother Earth's Economy||

    Only if you say so, sevo.

  • Pale Idiot||

    Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp Derp

    Permaderp!

  • some guy||

    Everybody wants to have their free lunch and eat it too...

  • Forager||

    Having a free lunch and eating it too is a most excellent idea. That's how all animals have lived and humans too, except for a single culture of humans who grab control of all the arable land and put food under lock and key.

    Why is food put under lock and key? It's the elite's only way to make people work for them.

    Who wants to work for the man anyway? One Dobe Bushman famously replied to that question, "Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"*

    * source:
    In Praise of Laziness
    by Jason Godesky | 5 June 2007
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....-laziness/

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Maybe you should forage for some knowledge of history.

  • ||

    Hunter-gatherers of the world, U-N-I-T-E!

  • MNG||

    You have nothing to lose but your nuts and berries!

  • ||

    No need to worry! There's always small children in the tribe to cannibalize if that happens!

  • Take eat, this is my body.||

    Cannibalism and sacrifice are marker behaviors of domestication and beginnings of agriculture, not forager society.

    Arens (1979) has asserted, paralleling Godelier to some extent, that cannibalism as a cultural phenomenon is a fiction, invented and promoted by agencies of outside conquest. But there is documentation of this practice (e.g. Poole 1983, Tuzin 1976) among, once again, peoples involved in domestication. The studies by Hogg (1966), for example, reveal its presence among certain African tribes, steeped in ritual and grounded in agriculture. Cannibalism is generally a form of cultural control of chaos, in which the victim represents animality, or all that should be tamed (Sanday 1986). Significantly, one of the important myths of Fiji Islanders, “How the Fijians first became cannibals,” is literally a tale of planting (Sahlins 1983). Similarly, the highly domesticated and time-conscious Aztecs practiced human sacrifice as a gesture to tame unruly forces and uphold the social equilibrium of a very alienated society. As Norbeck (1961) pointed out, non-domesticated, “culturally impoverished” societies are devoid of cannibalism and human sacrifice. ~John Zerzan, Future Primitive http://rewild.info/anthropik/l.....primitive/

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    "As Norbeck (1961) pointed out, non-domesticated [sic], 'culturally impoverished' societies are devoid of cannibalism and human sacrifice."


    Somebody forgot to tell the people of New Guinea.

    White Imbecile, you're so gullible.

  • Mother Earth's Economy||

    Somebody forgot to tell an angry, old fart that New Guinea was one of the birthplaces of agriculture.

    ANTHROPOLOGY: Enhanced: New Guinea: A Cradle of Agriculture Science 11 July 2003: 180-181.

    Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea
    SG Haberle, C Lentfer, R Fullagar… - Science, 2003 - sciencemag.org

    The origins and development of New Guinea agriculture
    J Golson - Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant …, 1989

  • sarcasmic||

    Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!

  • ||

    eliminashunist rhetaric????

  • sarcasmic||

    I always liked the one about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac.

    Stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.

  • ||

    Lol, 10 points

  • Error 404||

    Groan.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    C+

    You're improving, keep at it.

  • Matrix||

    I like the internets, computers, video games, NFL football, iPads, comfortable beds, modern medicine, pizza, chinese food, and bug spray. I'll take modern conveniences and billions of people as opposed to being bored out of my mind when I only work 2 hours a day and have nothing else to do because we have no video games, NFL football, or Sitcoms.

  • Electronic Heroin||

    "Not unlike drugs or alcohol, the television experience allows the participant to blot out the real world and enter into a pleasurable and passive mental state. The worries and anxieties of reality are as effectively deferred by becoming absorbed in a television program as by going on a 'trip' induced by drugs or alcohol. And just as alcoholics are only vaguely aware of their addiction, feeling that they control their drinking more than they really do ('I can cut it out any time I want—I just like to have three of four drinks before dinner'), people similarly overestimate their control over television watching. Even as they put off other activities to spend hour after hour watching television, they feel they could easily resume living in a different, less passive style. But somehow or other, while the television set is present in their homes, the click doesn't sound. With television pleasures available, those other experiences seem less attractive, more difficult somehow.

    "Finally it is the adverse effect of television viewing on the lives of so many people that defines it as a serious addiction. The television habit distorts the sense of time. It renders other experiences vague and curiously unreal while taking on a greater reality for itself. It weakens relationships by reducing and sometimes eliminating normal opportunities for talking, for communicating." [p.p. 23-25, Marie Winn, THE PLUG IN DRUG; Penguin, 1977. ISBN - 0-14-007698-0]
    http://dieoff.org/page21.htm

  • Matrix||

    Good thing I don't actually watch much television. Usually only football, which is on only in the fall/winter, and only a couple of days a week. Other times, I only watch when I'm eating dinner with the roommates. Then I head up to my room and either use the net or play video games (using a TV, but not actually watching TV programs)

  • Electronic Heroin||

    The author of that 1977 book would probably include internets, computers, video games, NFL football, iPads in her definition of Electronic Heroin.

    Electronics are an addiction even I can't kick. At least I can take a hit with my Reason pals.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Is Lord of the Flies not required reading anymore?

  • Lord of the Lies||

    Lord of the Flies is an excellent example of how humans are inherently evil. In fiction. If you have an important argument to make about human nature, you’ll only hurt your cause by holding up a fictional account as an example. ~Giulianna Lamanna

  • All of Human History...||

    ...suggests it is you and your references who live in a fictional world.

    We'll not kill you last when the next devolution of civilization occurs.

  • Death Threats now?||

    We'll not kill you last

    Libertarians are some of the most aggressive people I know.

    Just about any pretext will do, even not having the right hair cut.

    "Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment ... unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?"

    ~Murray Rothbard
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

    I guess Iran is already Libertarian land then:

    Iran Launches Holy War on Haircuts
    ABC News
    http://abcnews.go.com/Internat.....d=11095053

  • Yes, it's true||

    "Death threats"

    Yes, from one anonymous intertubes poster to another anonymous interwebs poster.

    See what a moron you are? Oh - no, you don't. You are somewhat entertaining. But we'll still not kill you last...

    /fantasy land

  • ##||

    So all those Reason articles on reigning in abuse of police power are just a smoke screen, eh? You wouldn't recognize a libertarian if they stopped an anarchist from killing you.

  • City = Police State||

    Polis (city people)
    Politics (city people business)
    Police (city people enforcement)

    Libertarians don't identify the foundation of police abuse. It's the social stratification of mass society, or the city.

    It's basically because humans evolved to be egalitarian band animals, neurobiologically adapted to numbers fewer than Dunbar's Number.

    Thus, the Voluntary City is an oxymoron. The City is always a police state to some extent, sometimes a soft tyranny like Western nations, other times as openly brutal as Pyongyang's.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    It's basically because humans evolved to be egalitarian band animals, neurobiologically adapted to numbers fewer than Dunbar's Number.

    Thus, the Voluntary City is an oxymoron.

    There is not even a strand of chewing gum to connect the premise to the conclusion here. I mean, really, what work do you imagine that 'Thus' is doing?

  • ||

    Lord of the Flies rings true because we've all been through grade school.

    Only someone who was never the weird kid in the classroom would believe that Lord of the Flies isn't an accurate description of human nature, at least of children.

  • Galt's Primitivism||

    You stick with your fiction; meanwhile, I'm referencing this gentleman's scholarship with academic citations, as follows:

    In another fundamental blow to civilization, we now learn that not only was human life once, and for so long, a state that did not know alienation or domination, but as the investigations since the ’80s by archaeologists John Fowlett, Thomas Wynn, and others have shown, those humans possessed an intelligence at least equal to our own. At a stroke, as it were, the “ignorance” thesis is disposed of, and we contemplate where we came from in a new light.

    To put the issue of mental capacity in context, it is useful to review the various (and again, ideologically loaded) interpretations of human origins and development. Robert Ardrey (1961, 1976) served up a bloodthirsty, macho version of prehistory, as have to slightly lesser degrees, Desmond Morris and Lionel Tiger. Similarly, Freud and Konrad Lorenz wrote of the innate depravity of the species, thereby providing their contributions to hierarchy and power in the present.

    Fortunately, a far more plausible outlook has emerged, one that corresponds to the overall version of Paleolithic life in general. Food sharing has for some time been considered an integral part of earliest human society (e.g. Washburn and DeVore, 1961). Jane Goodall (1971) and Richard Leakey (1978), among others, have concluded that it was the key element in establishing our uniquely Homo development at least as early as 2 million years ago. This emphasis, carried forward since the early ’70s by Linton, Zihlman, Tanner, and Isaac, has become ascendant. One of the telling arguments in favor of the cooperation thesis, as against that of generalized violence and male domination, involves a diminishing, during early evolution, of the difference in size and strength between males and females. Sexual dimorphism, as it is called, was originally very pronounced, including such features as prominent canines or “fighting teeth” in males and much smaller canines for the female. The disappearance of large male canines strongly suggests that the female of the species exercised a selection for sociable, sharing males. Most apes today have significantly longer and larger canines, male to female, in the absence of this female choice capacity (Zihlman 1981, Tanner 1981).

    Future Primitive
    John Zerzan
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/l.....primitive/

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So... food should be free, Forager?

    What else should be free?

  • sevo||

    "What else should be free?"
    If someone handed out brains, maybe he'd get some.

  • fish||

    You know who else thought stuff should be free.....?

  • Born Free!||

    Land, Air, Clouds, the Sea.
    Our Mother.
    Free.
    Free from pollution.
    Free from domination.
    Free from privation schemes like private property of Mother Earth's surface.

  • CE||

    How about free from the predations of politicians and other petty tyrants?

  • Born Free!||

    Absolutely, CE!

    Just remember this:

    "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73

    How does agriculture do this? Here's a good summary of the empirical evidence, as follows:

    These late Mesolithic foragers spend more and more time cultivating at more intensive levels, to produce enough food for the escalating competition of the Big Men’s feasts. It is hard, and they must sacrifice the freedom and leisure of their former life, but at least they have some security. Eventually, those Big Men have sufficient influence to make their followers stop thinking of themselves as hunters who farm, and begin thinking of themselves as farmers who hunt.

    Big Men become chiefs, chiefs become kings, populations explode and civilization moves inexorably from that beginning to the present crisis.

    In the years since 9/11, a quote from Benjamin Franklin has enjoyed renewed popularity in certain circles: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The loss of civil liberties and freedoms suffered by the United States’ citizenry under the second Bush regime, though significant, remain small when compared to the freedoms lost 10,000 years ago when our forebears (memetically, if not genetically) took up civilization. Agriculture is a hard life, as we have already seen. Malnutrition and disease followed almost immediately; war, tyranny and poverty followed inexorably. By relying solely on domesticated crops, intensive agriculture becomes the only subsistence technology that is truly susceptible to real famine. The safety the Big Men offered was illusory; in fact, that ancient bargain put us in a more precarious position than we had ever known–or will likely ever know again.

    Ten thousand years ago, our ancestors traded the bulk of that very real freedom that is our species’ birthright, for a little temporary safety. If there is an original sin, a fall of man, that was it. From that day to this, we have not deserved—nor have we had—either one.

    Noble or Savage? Both. (Part 1)
    by Jason Godesky | 11 January 2008
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....th-part-1/

  • ||

    What would happen if there was a march of 3,000,000 or so armed and armored citizens on their way to besiege the District of Columbia? Would the federales send in the military and add to their fiscal fantasy?

  • Just Sayin'||

    Sounds like you're the one with the fantasy.

  • ||

    Yeah, it's a fantasy, I'm just wondering how far the feds would go assuming it was possible (what I mentioned)

  • sarcasmic||

    Orders would be given.
    Would they be followed?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    There is some precedent for this. Google the 1932 Veteran's March. Hoover was not very receptive to it and Macarthur was ordered to evict them by whatever means necessary.

  • Rich||

    I think a less fantastic and more effective approach would be a Million Pitchfork March.

  • White Indian||

    Your childish mockery of the things I say is most revealing, since I am much like Ron Paul in that I don't claim that they are mine, but I simply spread the logical and reasonable message that had been composed before my time.

    Humanity can't keep going the way it has been for millennia, and you, as my brothers, know this.

    I've given my arguments. I have provided sources. I have rebutted all of your moronic snarks and insults. How can anybody ever convince you of the rightness of their idea if you never listen, much less the indisputable superiority of non-city state typologies?

  • White Indian||

    Here is a great source of information for the ignorant libertarian trolls:

    http://tinyurl.com/3sna4px

  • sarcasmic||

    Who farted?

  • MNG||

    Because you're argument is goofy. You come on here and keep pointing to a drop in life expectancy in the Neolithic period, but nobody here wants to go back to the age of Neolithic agriculture. What we enjoy is the lifestyle that came from industrial and post-industrial society, where the life expectancies shot up dramatically.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....._over_time

  • Bernanke of Life Expectancy ||

    No, your argument is goofy. You cherry pick the best data from the dominant race at the center of empire, flourishing for a short time from the fertility of the New World like an economic boom fueled by fiat money. That's as fair as Bernanke cherry picking data to prove how fiat money is a stimulus to the economy. Well, it is, right! - as long as you don't consider longer term consequences.

    Archeology and observation and medical analysis shows agriculture, in general, shortens life expectancy, shortens stature, increases disease (diseases of civilization.)

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Archeology and observation and medical analysis shows agriculture, in general, shortens life expectancy, shortens stature, increases disease

    Yes. We know this. It's generally known. We also know that agriculture is necessary to take advantage of Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, of gains through trade, of specialisation, and of economies of scale. These allow for the invention of, amongst other things, a polio vaccine.

  • Bernanke's Nemesis||

    Polio is a communicable disease which is categorized as a disease of civilization.

    www.sciencedaily.com/articles/p/poliomyelitis.htm

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Okay, let's imagine, as if we weren't crazy people, that "polio vaccine" was a synecdoche for medicine in general. My current life expectation is above seventy. My projected life expectation (given the medical advancements that will happen in my lifetime) is probably in the region of one-hundred. The law of comparative advantage, gains through trade, economies of scale and most of all specialisation (which, as it happens, get more useful the more people you have and the longer they live) really do solve problems which aren't caused by agriculture (like dying of tooth-rot - a nasty and not-uncommon way to go for our pre-agricultural ancestors) as well as one that are.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Please don't feed the troll. Wide Injun here is simply rehashing old and tired anti-Civ theories circulated by Rosseauian/Genesists nincompoops.

    "Oh, such Paradise we enjoyed before the Fall of Man!" Or "agricultural city-State", yet another iteration of the same old nostalgic crap as found in Genesis.

    This imbecile probably took a course in college taught by some whacky lunatic, suspended all disbelief and now thinks the whole world has been explained to him. Leave him be and he will go away.

  • Electronic Heroin||

    The privation caused by abstract ownership of private property is just a dominionism Genesis rehash.

    let them have dominion...subdue it: and have dominion...

    ~Genesis 1:26-28

    The Original Affluent Society was real, not the libertarian fantasy future like "It's a Jetsons World: Private Miracles and Public Crimes" by Jeffrey Tucker.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Stupid,

    The privation caused by abstract ownership of private property is just a dominionism Genesis rehash.


    No, you dimwit: The Paradise story is a metaphorical tale that describes the longing for a simpler (i.e. pre-Civ) time. God's command to have dominion of the lands is one of those "duh!" moments in the Bible, as even hunter-gatherers have "dominion over their lands." You also forget how God showed clear preference for Abel's animal sacrifices over Cain's [Cain being a farmer.] There's nothing different between what you say and the silly nostalgic tale in the Bible.

    Private ownership of resources predates the Bible; even pastoral societies fought others for grasslands and water. Besides not being very smart, you're one lousy anthropologist.

  • free for me, not for thee||

    Of course Goddess (nature, evolution, moral being) prefers hunter-gatherers (Abel) over catastrophic agricultural murderers (Cain, the murdering, aggressive, invasive, occupational farmer.)

    By the way, pastoral societies did not predate agricultural societies; they are "fringe societies" seeking more freedom in an un-free civilized world (exception: the Saami, the reindeer-herders of northern Eurasia and Siberia.)

    source:
    Dr. Eric Smith's lecture notes on pastoralism:
    http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/pastoral.htm

    Old-Mex's Hobbesian mythology is no match for rigorously studied empirical data.

    But thanks for clarifying you're on the side of Cain, the murdering, aggressive, invasive, occupational agriculturalist.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Of course Goddess (nature, evolution, moral being) prefers hunter-gatherers (Abel) over catastrophic agricultural murderers[Cain]


    "Goddess...."

    Shit. Does she have a good pair of knockers, at least???

  • sevo||

    free for me, not for thee:
    The mud mama! The mud mama! The mud mama!

  • respect your Mother||

    Why such disrespect for your Mother, sevo? You'd be dead without food from her soil. We'll all be dead if the totalitarian agricultural City-State continues to deplete her abundant climax foliage into arid deserts for private profit.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    We'll all be dead if the totalitarian agricultural City-State continues to deplete her abundant climax foliage into arid deserts for private profit.

    Okay, this is an obvious flame, because otherwise I wouldn't have ended up laughing so hard at such blatant anthropomorphism.

  • fish||

    Old Mex...take your own advice...don't roll in the mud with the earth pig!

  • Earth Pig||

    You say that like you'd call your mother a Pig.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tell us where you live, EH, so we can test your true views on private-property ownership.

  • Prisoner of Civilization||

    I'm in the prison of civilization, and I follow the private property rules of the warden lest the enforcers kill me. Just like you pay heavy taxes, or get killed.

    Unless you think that a prisoner has consented to being a prisoner just because he's following prison rules. Slavers thought the same thing.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm in the prison of civilization, and I follow the private property rules of the warden lest the enforcers kill me. Just like you pay heavy taxes, or get killed.

    Please. The Unabomber would have lived out the rest of his days as King Shackbrah if he hadn't been, you know, bombing things.

  • Ron Paul Blowback||

    Ron Paul calls it blowback.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Okay, let's imagine that we have this hunter-gatherer non-civilisation of yours. Say some member of this society takes it upon themselves to take some clay from the bed of a river, and with it makes a sculpture. He puts it to one side to let it dry. Is it morally acceptable to you for one of the man's tribe-members to come along, take the sculpture, and smash it against the floor?

  • Imagine||

    We don't have to imagine a horticultural or forager NON-STATE sociopolitical typology.

    The Original Affluent Society is not a fantasy. It is being studied via empirical data.

    Paleolithic people had "property rights" for things they made. But it was so simple to re-make spears and bows and such tools that they had a gift economy based on abundance.

    Today, capitalism is based on scarcity. Artificially induced scarcity.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The Original Affluent Society is not a fantasy. It is being studied via empirical data.

    Yeah, and it required a population vastly smaller than the one in place right now.

    Just because global society is confronting the limits of human scale doesn't mean people are going to voluntarily go back to hunting buffalo with spears to make their teepees. And if you think there's going to be any gender equality in such a Glorious Paradise, you're kidding yourself. The hairy-pitted Slutwalkers you emasculate yourself towards at the campus coffeehouse would find out real quick how worthless their gender studies and comparative lit degrees are when they're forced to dress a bison.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Okay, look, don't put 'property rights' in speech marks like that distances you from the concept. You didn't really answer my question, but I'm going to take your cowardly non-answer to mean that yes, you'd have a problem with the guy smashing the sculpture. So you're fine with the seizure of natural resources (clay) as private property. The next question would be whether you're okay with somebody seizing land as property - but somewhere else on this thread you've already admitted that you approve of hunter-gatherers building houses, which requires the de facto seizure of land:

    new settlers have only to pick their food, build their thatch homes, and, once that home is built, relax most of every day

    Unless you think it's okay for someone to come along and burn down your thatch house because they want the land for something else, you recognise the private ownership of land. And if you do, what exactly is your problem with, instead of building a house, I put my hours of labour into growing wheat? (Or, if you truly hate wheat that much, okra).

  • Matrix||

    There are many outliers in life expectancy. Besides, infants dying lowers the life expectancy of the average. When you have a lot of them, it continues lowering it. Those who make it past childhood had longer lives than the average. Yes, pre-modern times were pretty bad. But the advent of modern medicine dramatically increased life expectancies. Even modernized people live far longer than modern hunter-gatherers.

  • Life Expectancy ||

    It has only been very recently that civilized life expectancy has caught up to even the most marginal foragers...The worldwide average life expectancy, then, is the far more relevant measure than the United States’. That number is currently 67 years–exactly the number Burton-Jones found for !Kung women eking out a living in the Kalahari. Given the marginality of the ecosystems these foragers exist in, it seems that we could easily conclude from these data that the incredible advances made in our life expectancy–advances which are now slowing, due to the diminishing marginal returns of medical research (a point addressed explicitly in thesis #15)–we have managed to raise our life expectancy to that of the most meager and marginalized foragers.

    Thesis #25: Civilization reduces quality of life.
    by Jason Godesky | 11 January 2006
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

  • bmp1701||

    Wow, that link is like the ultra-pinko progressive brother of SurvivalBlog.

  • Progressive?||

    Actually, Libertarians are some of the loudest progressivists.

    Progressivists deny that we face any systemic problems, only technical problems, with technical solutions...Technophiliacs and techno-utopians often wax poetic for the prospects of our technological future. Science fiction like Star Trek often portrays this vision, where technology has solved all of our problems. But ultimately, such hopes are statements of belief, not fact–and a belief that is not very well-grounded in reality, at that.

    Thesis #16: Technology cannot stop collapse.
    by Jason Godesky | 2 November 2005
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

  • ||

    No mention of Military spending? We do not need Team America World Police. Take those black sites and stick'em in another place the sun don't shine.

  • Matrix||

    'Merica F*** YEAH!

  • Game Theory Prisoner's Dilemma||

    The Neo-Cons are smart enough to know exactly how the agricultural civilization works; that's why they get elected.

    The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do–and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation.

    This is the underlying logic of Joseph Tainter’s argument concerning collapse in peer polities in The Collapse of Complex Societies. If one peer polity does choose to collapse, that region becomes a resource that can be exploited by its neighbors. Whoever conquers it first will have an advantage over the others in the continuing race of escalation.

    Thesis #12: Civilization must always grow.
    by Jason Godesky | 23 October 2005
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

  • Bod||

    Here I was, about to comment that your ideas intrigue me, and that I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter, and you preempt my request!

    Bravo, Sir. Bravo!

  • Almanian||

    Take those black sites and stick'em in another place the sun don't shine.

    And RACIST

  • Aqua Buddha||

    White Indian is here. Time for a threadjack.

    Gay Bigfoot & the 7 Weirdest Mythical Creatures in the World
    ...Tanzania is the perfect holiday destination for people who enjoy hot weather, beautiful sunsets and being sodomized in their sleep by an ethereal, bat-winged penis ogre.

    Legend says that the beast known as Popobawa has been menacing the Tanzanian island of Pemba in his own unique style ever since the '70s. He can be identified by his smell (reputed to be quite pungent), and also by the fact that he is a one-eyed flying ogre with his spam javelin lodged in your rectum. He attacks only men, sneaking into their houses at night and buttburgling them for up to an hour, then--in an oddly familiar twist to anyone who reads superhero comics--demanding that they tell all their friends about him.

    Crime has a new enemy. His name is PenisOgreRapistMan....

  • ||

    That's a weird tactic, Aqua Buddha -- you're distracting us from White Indian by posting an article about the guy?

  • Just Sayin'||

    Since when do you need an excuse to threadjack?

  • Aqua Buddha||

    Should I change my name to PenisOgreRapistMan?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I thinking about using "Popobawa's Second Eye"

  • Aqua Buddha||

    For your H&R name or your real name?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Why not both? I could use the publicity.

  • Bod||

    You sure STEVE SMITH will be able to handle the competition?

  • STEVE SMITH||

    POPOBAWA IS CHEAP IMITATOR. STEVE SMITH WILL FIND HIM AND ASSRAPE HIM ALL THE WAY BACK TO HIS CHEAPLY ADORNED CAVE.

  • Aqua Buddha||

    I dub thee STEVE "POPOBAWA" SMITH.

  • ||

    During the Harding / Coolidge Administrations, Federal Per Capita Federal Expenditures dropped. That is the last time (other than post-war periods).

  • kai||

    I find it instructive that Harding and Coolidge (and their Treasury Sec Andrew Mellon) cut government spending heavily at a time of deep recession. Not only didn't this cause the sky to fall, but it ushered in a period of strong growth.

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean when the government removes less money from the economy, the economy improves?

    That's like totally counter-intuitive.

  • Bill||

    That's not the way to win votes!

  • ||

    I think there is more support for drastic cuts than people think. The vast majority of middle-class people I talk to recognize the disaster that most government programs are. And we know that none of them are really for our benefit.

    Social Security? Please stop taxing it out of my income - I'll save my own money (and please stop taxing savings, I already paid income tax on that money).

    Medicare / Medicaid? Stop. I'll but long-term care insurance with the savings and have money left over.

    Welfare, food stamps, etc... No thanks, I'll work.

  • adam||

    "Medicare / Medicaid? Stop. I'll but long-term care insurance with the savings and have money left over."

    This is interesting. I wonder how many people would trade Medicare for a long-term/hospice care plus very basic medical insurance (by basic, I mean prescriptions, regular doctor's visits, pain meds, surgery that has a substantial chance of succeeding, but no end-of-life, hail mary surgeries and treatments). And if so, I wonder if that would be cheaper than Medicare.

  • Want to see people starve?||

    People will starve to death without those government entitlements, which make-up for the privation of those disestablished from the land by private property land titles, the original big-government entitlement program.

  • Almanian||

    LOL!

    "Private Charity". No one will starve. The end.

  • Irish Potato Famine||

    Where was the mythical "private charity" as millions of Catholic farm workers starved, while as employees of Protestant land owners, they harvested grain for export away from a starving island in a deep famine?

    Private land ownership = privation of others.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Where was the mythical "private charity" as millions of Catholic farm workers starved[...]


    The public anti-charity called the British Government stopped any shipments of corn to arrive in Ireland from America, despite the Irish people's ability to purchase that corn.

  • ##||

    Unlike all those thriving socialist countries where all needs are met by the government. No starving people standing in bread lines there, eh?

  • Swedish Chef||

    You don't like Swedish meatballs?

    "Jaaa!! FlaggPunsch ees on me! Surströmming und meety bolls forr eveeryvan!" ~The Swedish Chef

  • ##||

    Now, now. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't saything negative about Swedish meatballs, just negative things about the meatball making all these silly "primative is better" statements.

  • Rich||

    "detect and eliminate 25 percent of spending per year across the federal government."

    Let's see. I detect that Agency X received $Y last year. So, this year Agency X will receive $Y*0.75. "Agency X executives, deal with it."

    Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

  • Krugabe||

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

  • Mustakrakish||

    Fiscal Fantasy VII...

    BEST GAME EVAR!!!!11!!!1!!ONE!!

  • GSL||

    If the national fiscal crisis has accomplished nothing else, it has finally restored the good name of Ebenezer Scrooge.

    And the rising prices of precious metals have demonstrated the wisdom of Scrooge McDuck's saving habits.

  • ||

    Excuse me, I have to go take a money bath.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Why not a simple across-the-board 10% pay cut for all federal employees and contractors plus a 30% paycut on all federal salaries over $50,000 per year plus a cap on cash remuneration (salary, overtime, bonus, etc.) of $120,000?

    If they quit, good riddance. If they strike, fire 'em.

  • Realist||

    Gee, already? How many times are you going to write about the same fucking thing???

  • ||

    " . . . 56 percent of Americans said we can bring spending under control without reductions in Social Security and Medicare."

    Well that's factually correct. Cut military/defense spending in half (we'll be OK dont shit your pants people) and gut or eliminate everything else and we can balance the budget without touching SS or Medicare.

  • k2000k||

    No that wouldn't.work. I'm typing on my smart phone so I don't have ready access to the numbers; but i believe defense, ss, and medicaid account for 60% of spending. That's around 2 trillion of a 3 trillion budget. Cutting all other programs in their entirety and the military would allow you to fund those.two programs as it stands, the problem is, a its unrealistic and b, ss and Medicare are going to explode the way it currently is structured. It's a ponzi scheme that must be drastically overhauled.

  • Untermenschen||

    "The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live."

    - John McMurtry

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The free market means that those without money to buy what they need have to rely on private charity instead of the iron glove of the State.

  • ||

    The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to use force or fraud to obtain money from others in order to live

  • Private = Privation||

    Private property, that is, abstract ownership of the earth's surface and resources, is forced privation of people who have been aggressively disestablished from the land.

    Private property title, as the primary big-government entitlement program, is a contradiction of the Non-Aggression Principle.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Private property, that is, abstract ownership of the earth's surface and resources[...]


    It's not only that, dimwit. It stems from the self-ownership principle - you Do own your own body, don't you? Or are you someone else's puppet?

    Are uber-lefties idiots? Asking the question is asnwering it.

  • Love, Nurture, Keep - or Own? ||

    People own property. People aren't property; thus, they are not something to be owned. Referring you people as something to be owned is a degrading, dehumanizing term.

    As if the Jesus character had spoken, "Thou shalt own thy neighbor as thyself."

    Can you think of other words that better reflect how you relate to yourself, other than "own?"

    Do you provide for yourself? Do you love yourself? Nurture? Keep?

    Ah yes, keep.

    The murderously aggressive, invasive, agricultural city-Statist Cain killed his Non-State foraging brother Abel.

    And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? ~Genesis 4:9

    Doesn't Cain's surly question pretty much sum up libertarianism?

    What the hell, that savage Abel was trespassing on Cain's private property! Unleash the Cops!

    "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    People own property. People aren't property[.]


    So do you or DON'T own your own body?

    Who is now engaging in obfuscation?

  • People aren't Property||

    People aren't property to be owned.

    You dominator propertarians try to dehumanize and degrade people into thinking they are mere property, to be sold and used like a tool.

    Can you relate to yourself and others with words other than those denoting control of property?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Property is an exclusive right to control, not some abstract LISP-tag saying 'this belongs to X'. If you believe that people have an exclusive right to control their own body, you believe in self-ownership. If you don't, you legitimise slavery.

  • Libertarian Slavery||

    Actually, it is the libertarian Propertarian ownership fetish for property, even human property, that legitimizes slavery.

    It's a slippery slope from regarding humans as property to be owned, even partially by wage slavery, to full blown slavery, including the Austrian economist slavery apologist Block's stated predilection for Sadism and Whips.

    Block, along with Robert Nozick, is one of the leading libertarian defenders of voluntary slave contracts... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W....._contracts

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    I think you already know I'm not going to care about slippery slope arguments - you tossed that out there because you didn't have anything else to say. Voluntary labour in exchange for whatever is not slavery.

  • Disestablishment is Duress ||

    Labor in an agricultural City-State society is never "voluntary." It's coerced under duress, from the fear of starvation.

    Dr. Ralph Borsodi states it well this way, as follows:

    Men do not do repetitive work as a matter of choice. They do it out of dire necessity. They can be driven to this sort of work only if they are deprived of access to the land. Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not. wherever access to land is free, men work only to provide what they actually need or desire. Wherever the white man has come in contact with savage cultures this fact becomes apparent. There is for savages in their native state no such sharp distinction between "work" and "not working" as clocks and factory whistles have accustomed the white man to accept. They cannot be made to work regularly at repetitive tasks in which they have no direct interest except by some sort of duress. Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs. Only after he has made it impossible for them to support themselves as they desire, does be find it possible to drive them to work for him according to approved factory techniques, with sharp distinctions between the time devoted to productive labor and the time devoted to rest or play.

    source: THIS UGLY CIVILIZATION
    by RALPH BORSODI
    NEW YORK | SIMON AND SCHUSTER
    1 9 2 9

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    The human digestive system wasn't created as a way of keep people down. People have always had to work for fear of starvation - that's what hunter-gathering is. If you would rather hunt wild animals than work in exchange for money you're really welcome to. I'm also against stealing people's land. But how is my planting a patch of wheat next to my house in any way enslaving you?

  • Wheat, the enslaver||

    Wheat.

    Ever read Richard Manning's Against the Grain?

    It's cheaper hardcover (weird, eh?), on Amazon or whatever.

    "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 73

    Thus, Wheat is on my non-State shitlist more than, say, the Politboro or Kremlin on the Potomac.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Look, we could each give each other a hundred references - but you know as well as I do that would be a blatant attempt to stop the debate. I'm not going to read your book for the same reason I'm not going to read Paul Ehrlich - first you have to get my probability estimate that it's going to be useful to me out of the gutter. Now answer the question in my previous post or forfeit the debate.

  • Emporer Wears No Clothes||

    "There is for savages in their native state no such sharp distinction between "work" and "not working"

    This explains why Indians in Canada are so fkn useless. So thanks for that, neo-leftist numnuts.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    People aren't property to be owned.

    Most of the the history of humanity disagrees.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Untermenschen,

    "The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live."


    "Whereas in an unfree market those without power do not have the right to live: Their lives are forfeit. At least I can take my chances in a free market."

  • free for me, not for thee||

    Visualize a fertile valley 10,000 years ago with fruits, nuts and vegetables growing wild along with lush thatch for building shelters.

    The new settlers have only to pick their food, build their thatch homes, and, once that home is built, relax most of every day.

    A cunning cabal form and each lay claim to a part of the land. They make a pact with toughies that they will share the spoils if they protect their unequal and unjust “property rights.’

    The primary cause of poverty among plenty has just been established. The meek, mild, and law abiding now have to share the food they pick with those “owners,” have to build their houses, have to entertain them, and on and on.

    Those first unjust claims to nature’s wealth is the foundation of today’s conspicuous consumption within what are termed the middle to upper class today.

    Those cunning and now powerful continually expanding their claims to unearned wealth through custom and law became the “property rights laws, as applied to nature’s resources and technologies, denying others their rightful share of what nature offers to all for free,” that is in place today.

    It is specifically those unequal property rights laws which create massive wealth for the few and massive poverty for the many today.

    The large middle classes sitting between the wealthy and the impoverished give the illusion of an efficient economy. But that is only chance and distinctly an illusion. Massive wealth is ground up within the superstructure of those many monopolies.

    Eliminate them, share the remaining productive jobs (roughly half as many hours worked as within today’s monopolized and aristocratically structured economies) and employed labor hours drop by half or more even as all are provided a quality life.

    Your property rights laws today, as applied to nature’s resources and technologies, are nothing more than aristocracy’s property rights law, exclusive title to nature’s wealth which she offers to all for free.

    We are not talking about personal property built by labor which is properly exclusively owned. We are talking about the wealth of nature which was not produced by labor and should be shared relatively equally by everybody.

    End of the Free Market System
    J.W. Smith
    http://www.ied.info/blog/1368/.....ket-system

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Visualize a fertile valley 10,000 years ago with fruits, nuts and vegetables growing wild along with lush thatch for building shelters.


    That's the "Paradise" story, numbnuts.

    Those first unjust claims to nature’s wealth[...]


    You have no idea of what you talk about.

    End of the Free Market System


    See: North Korea. People are going back to be hunter-gatherers by necessity, just like you like it, White Imbecile.

  • Dear Leader||

    There is plenty to eat in glorious North Korea! Trees with nourishing bark! Much grass to be foraged!

  • Paradise was real||

    Paradise wasn't a mythical dream, even though that's the way Genesis presents it. 2 million years of the Original Affluent Society was REAL.

    Now deal with it.

    North Korea is part of your tragic agricultural civilization. It is not a Non-State sociopolitical typology.*

    * NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Paradise wasn't a mythical dream[...]


    Don't tell me - you were there. Right?

    North Korea is part of your tragic agricultural civilization.


    Interesting that you would assert that, as the other "agricultural" civs do not have people eating grass. Either a theory is universal or it is not. Yours is certainly not, more like the musings of a paranoid-schezophrenic.

  • Mother Earth's Economy||

    Old Fart, have you ever read about what the English and French agricultural civilizations ate during their frequent famines? Tragically, North Koreans are eating the same.

    The aggressive City-STATE is always a disaster in the long run, even if a short boom like fiat money, which also ends in disaster.

  • ##||

    You've obviously never spent a day in the woods in your life. Where did you get this fantasy, watching the Smurfs? In most parts of the world fruits and vegatables are only plentiful during the summer growing season and you either bust ass collecting and preserving all you can store or starve. Then you spend the winter hunting meat or starve. Not to mention competing with animals for this "plentiful" food. You do know that most of our commercial veggies have been selectively bred and most wild varieties are pretty scrawny and of lower yield, right? You would need to collect a lot more for the same result. Even if what you said was true, the result would be increasing population until supply is execeeded and then famine. Around here we'll have a few mild winters leading to abundant food. The deer population will explode until the next hard winter when many of them starve. There's your primitive paradise for you. You can't escape supply and demand.

  • Diseases of Civilization||

    ...watching the Smurfs?

    It's a well-researched understanding of human evolution and the Original Affluent Society, based on empirical evidence and honest thought.

    You can't escape supply and demand.

    Yeah, that's why agricultural civilizations always collapse.

    That's why this one is in the beginnings of collapse.

    Mother Nature just can't be fooled with fiat-money-like Green Revolution boom. Then comes fiat-money-like doom.

  • ##||

    Oh. Empirical evidence and honest thought, eh? That's odd, The impression that I got was more of unprovable hand waving about impractical theories and generally being disagreeable. Argue all you like but you're talking a pipe dream for no other reason that few people would willingly go back to your primitive non paradise and if forced to, would immediately start trying to rebuild what they had.

    You seem to operate under the assumption that Mother Nature cares what we do. The Earth could get along perfectly well as a lifeless rock. How about that for primitive?

  • Olduvai Theory||

    That's right, Mother Nature doesn't care what we do. If we defy her accounting laws of her economy/ecology long enough, we go bye-bye. It's quite natural for species who engage in evolutionarily unstable behavior to disappear.

    Certainly that will happen to civilization. We're seeing the collapse of a fiat economy and fiat ecology.

    Think it'll get rebuilt?

    Fred Hoyle stated in 1964, "This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only."*

    I think the species will last though. Not everybody is a domesticated loser.

    *source:
    The Olduvai Theory:
    Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age
    Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D.
    Institute on Energy and Man,
    June 27, 1996
    http://dieoff.org/page125.htm

  • ##||

    Wow! He's been to other planetary systems and seen the truth first hand. And I thought it was just another unprovable theory.

    Your primitive utopia is a grueling and harsh existance. Most people would immediately start looking for ways to better their standard of living and the building would start all over again. I do agree about one thing. If humanity can survive an ice age it can survive without you.

  • Born Free!||

    You're just spouting Hobbesian mythology that serves the continued occupation of earth by the City-State.

    There is no primitive utopia. There was a two-million year long Original Affluent Society.

    Got a problem with empirical data from scholarly journals that destroys your dearest held fantasies?

  • ##||

    Sorry, the only Hobbs that I believe in is Calvin's tiger.

    You've really got to show me that time machine. There is scant evidence of how society behaved two million years ago. Your scholarly journals take observations of modern cultures and infer how ancient society might have been and for every one of them I can find another scholar who disagrees.

  • Born Free!||

    Are you really that stupid?

    Thomas Hobbes stated in his book Leviathan the oft-repeated myth of paleolithic life....nasty, brutish, and short.

    But yeah, go back to your comic books, and have fun with scholar.google.com, you might actually learn something there.

  • ##||

    I must be. I keep feeding the troll. Nasty, brutish, and short describes life through most of recorded history. I doubt pre history was much different. The bushmen of the Kalahari have a have an average life expectancy of 45-50 years. 50% of children die before 15 and 20% within the first year. Only 10% live beyond 60. Sounds like an affluent paradise to me.

    http://www.kalahari-meerkats.c....._light.pdf

  • Born Free!||

    The 'Bushmen' are the oldest inhabitants of southern Africa, where
    they have lived for at least 20,000 years.

    Can you show me a civilization that ever lasted that long? No?

    Back to life expectancy.

    U.S. life expectancy at birth in 1850, during the golden age according to libertarians, was....

    38 years.

    U.S. life expectancy in 1900 was....

    47.8 years.

    Sounds like an affluent paradise to me. LOL

    That at least sheds some honest light on the bushmen's 45-50 years.

    Only in the last few decades has the oil-fueled "green revolution" be able to do the same thing fiat money does, temporarily. A brief boom.

    Now, if you're like Bernanke, you think it'll go on forever. With the right techno-touch.

    Tell me how that's going after 20,000 years, eh?

  • Born Free!||

    P.S. my US life expectancy data came from A History of the Standard of Living in the United States, Richard H. Steckel, Ohio State University.

  • ##||

    There have been people in other parts of the world for 20000 years too. So what?

    Don't you also need to know the Bushmen's life expectancy in 1850 to make a valid comparison? How about this then, according to Encyclopedia Britannica life expectancy in the Neolithic was 20 and in the Bronze Age 26. I'll take my a boom with an average lifespan of 75 years or so.

    Nothing, not even foragers, go on forever. Eventually the sun will burn out, there will be an asteroid strike, or some other cosmic incident will make Earth uninhabitable. Your simple foragers will all die but there's at least a chance that technology will allow humans to survive until a bigger catastrophe overtakes them. Ask me again in another 20000 years.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The 'Bushmen' are the oldest inhabitants of southern Africa, where
    they have lived for at least 20,000 years.

    Can you show me a civilization that ever lasted that long? No?

    Like anybody with common sense wants to live like a bunch of illiterate primitives, hoping that they don't die of infection or a bite from a black mamba, or get chased down and mauled by a hippo.

    There's a reason that one of the most popular sayings in Africa is, "Africa wins again."

  • fish||

    Didn't Star Trek do this guys bit about 40 years ago?

    "Headin' out to Eden, yea, brother!"
    "Headin' out to Eden, yea, brother!"
    "No more trouble in my body or my mind."
    "Gonna live like a king on whatever I find."
    "Eat all the fruit and throw away the rind."
    "Yea, brother!"

    - Space Hippies singing

  • ||

    [We are talking about the wealth of nature which was not produced by labor and should be shared relatively equally by everybody.]

    Worked well with the comune thingies.

  • capitalism collapsing||

    Sharing worked well for 2 million years in the Original Affluent Society.

    Communism, which tries to replicate the egalitarianism of small Non-State sociopolitical typologies within a agricultural State mass society, is an abject failure, because it concentrates ownership of the land even more to a smaller elite than does capitalism - until now.

    The USSR once collapsed because of too much central control through government, the USA is now collapsing because of too much central control through private wealth.

  • ||

    Sharing worked well for 2 million years in the Original Affluent Society.

    I don't think that word means what you think it means.

  • Marshall Sahlins||

    It does.

    Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times.

    The Original Affluent Society
    Marshall Sahlins
    http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm

  • Old Mexican||

    White Imbecile would cry at the feeling of his first lice and crabs infestation IF he had to become a hunter-gatherer all of a sudden. Don't bother with the prissy "primitivist."

  • Diseases of Civilization||

    How are those diseases of civilization working out?

  • k2000k||

    Not to mention how many if us would never have survived infancy. But most likely he is nothing more than a troll

  • ##||

    Until the first prolonged drought when you have nothing stored and all the material wants are no longer easily satisfied.

  • Fiat Food||

    Drought affects agriculturists way more than foragers.

    Richard Lee did a famous anthropological study of the Kalahari bushmen during a drought.

    They complained it was taking up to 4 hours a day work to get food, instead of the usual 2.

    Their agricultural neighbors, the Bantu, were starving to death.

    Famine is a hallmark of agriculture, not Non-State societies.

    Look up the history of how many famines England and France endured not so long ago.

    The Green Revolution (turning oil into industrial food) has been a fiat-money like boom for so long, everybody thinks it's normal.

    Do you think fiat-money booms last forever? No? Neither will this brief flash of "wealth" from fiat, ag style.

    Fiat money. Fiat food. Both provide a brief flash of apparent "wealth." Both collapse.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Drought affects agriculturists way more than foragers.


    This is obviously false. In the case of agriculture, previous surpluses will simply raise in price, but they will exist. Foragers will find nothing, which is why most foraging societies are very small, and extremely poor.

    Richard Lee did a famous anthropological study of the Kalahari bushmen during a drought.


    No shit. Except that the Kalahari Desert is in a constant state of drought [hence: DESERT], for which the Bushmen have adapted. Not that the adaptation was NOT painful. If you tried their lifestyle, you would be crying like a little girl after the sight of one of your fingernails breaking.

    Their agricultural neighbors, the Bantu, were starving to death.


    WHICH Bantu, White Imbecile? There are 300 to 400 different Bantu peoples spread over all Southern Africa.

    You are so gullible.

  • Agriculture = Famine||

    Evidently you've never heard of the Anasazi (a chiefdom society.) Drought put an end to their agriculture, and they went back to the successful strategy of foraging, not affected so much by the drought.

    It's real simple, new plants - and that is what ag is all about - can't take drought as well as old growth.

  • ##||

    Considering that the Kalahari is a desert and the bushmen are extremely adept at living there while the Bantu are poor cattle farmers who can't afford to stockpile non perishable food, I hardly find that surprising. That doesn't make it the worldwide norm.

    A brief flash of apparent wealth that's been going on for how long now?

  • Agriculture = Famine||

    Sure, it's just one example, a very telling and well-documented example.

    Show me a study that posits that foragers suffered from famine more than agriculturalists.

    And how long has the brief flash of the Green Revolution lasted? Why, about as long as the brief flash of fiat money?

    BTW, are you a Bernanke sock-puppet?

  • ##||

    You have a time machine?!? According to everything I've read, nobody knows exactly why the Anasazi society collapsed. Climate might very well have been part of it but so might pressure from other tribes and overpopulation. They did what a lot of pueblo dwellers did and left for a more hospitable area or merged with other tribes. They didn't en masse become foragers.

    How long has it lasted? How old are the pyramids? We've had fits and starts and setbacks but most people will agree that the human condition has been on a general incline for most of the recorded history of agriculture.

    How about this one:

    http://www.mendeley.com/resear.....d-alaska/#

    Which states that, "Catastrophic famine in foraging societies, however, was on a relatively common experience in many areas of the world."

    Now that's just sad and says much of your personal bias. Just because I think that your primitive utopia is a pipe dream doesn't automatically mean that I support his brand of pipe dream either. This isn't an either/or situation. There's the middle ground where most of the rest of us dwell.

  • Agriculture = Famine||

    Yes, even paleolithic people have suffered famines, especially those living in harsh climates like a small island in a polar desert climate.

    But agriculture has greatly worsened the risk of famine, because of the many different risks of crop failure.

    That's why sacrifice religions are a part of agricultural societies - agricultural people become so desperate in the face of starvation to somehow appease the weather gods. People were willing to sacrifice even their own children to the gods in the face of agricultural famines.

  • Lol||

    What's wrong with a good old fashioned human sacrifice? Seems to me the Mayans and a lot of others did it more for fun, sport, and intimidation than anything else.

  • Take eat, this is my body.||

    Nothing. It's the only way to be moral. ~Hay-Zeus

  • Lol||

    Anyone who thinks that all a hunter's material wants are easily satisfied has never been hunting.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Anyone who thinks that all a hunter's material wants are easily satisfied has never been hunting.

    No shit. There's a reason that, after major hunts, the primitives gorged themselves to the point of bursting, and it wasn't because they were an affluent society--it was because they didn't have any idea where their next meal was coming from.

    The Indians started getting fatter after they acquired horses and rifles, and it wasn't because they had become agriculturalists all of a sudden.

  • Emporer Wears No Clothes||

    "in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. "

    As long as you only want to climb about 1-1/2 of Maszlow's steps.
    I'd prefer to mix in a little hot water, baked cookies, and college football. Call me greedy.

  • ||

    The new settlers have only to pick their food, build their thatch homes, and, once that home is built, relax most of every day.

    However, being restless, inquisitive, pack animals, they devote their ample free time to squabbling amongst themselves and attempting to increase their status in the dominance hierarchy.

    Conflict ensues. Sub-groups form to exploit the conflict (call them "cabals").

    A cunning cabal form[s] and each Some, seeking to avoid or at least manage conflict, or perhaps just to cement their place in the hierarchy lay claim to a part of the land. These attempts are fruitless due to the willingness of others to use the young males in their orbit (call them "toughies") to appropriate the fruits of the land claimed by others. They make a pact with some of these toughies that they will share the spoils if they protect their unequal and unjust “property rights" social experiment.

  • Zeb||

    Too many people take the right to life as a positive right. Which, of course, it is not (because the idea of positive rights is absurd). Of course you have the right to live (right up until the moment you die). You do not have a right to have the means to live provided to you. Similarly, the right to free press does not mean that everyone must be provided with a printing press.

  • White Indian #8||

    "You do not have a right to have the means to live provided to you," said the fellow who took stole that once-shared means away by aggression.

    The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ~Jean Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1754)

  • Untermensch||

    That post was certainly not by me. Not sure why my handle was chosen for (almost) appropriation.

    McMurtry’s comment is to blithely remove all of the free market discussion of ethics and hide it under a blanket and pretend it does not exist. I have yet to meet a believer in the efficacy of free markets who would subscribe to that repugnant philosophy. What is the intended implication? That the free market means that the poor have no right to life (and that free market believers therefore think we should kill the poor)? That statement is intended to cast all sorts of aspersions without stating them.

    If anything, free market types believe that free markets maximize the potential for people to make a living, that it is the best option to lift people out of poverty and help them achieve their goals. And as Scruffy points out, just because they do not want the government to do something does not mean that they do not want it done.

    McMurtry’s philosophy makes all sorts of distinctions and assumptions (between living and dead capital, for instance) that are required for his conclusions to be true. Libertarians would dispute many/most of them as a matter of first principles or as a matter of empirical verifiability.

  • Jebus||

    Geez, what the fuck is with this troll changing his name every 5 minutes. Got nothing better to do on a Monday morning than troll a libertarian site, your life must be really pathetic.

  • Emporer Wears No Clothes||

    The biggest leftist fucktards always operate from the premise that private property is the root of all evil. Once that's been established as the starting point, it's best to ignore said leftist fucktard.

  • White Indian #8||

    No more pathetic than a libertarian raging against the machine. At least I've more wholly identified the whole machine, the agricultural City-State, instead of just part of it, Statist "government."

    And if somebody else wants to use White Indian, like so many have here, trying to obfuscate the truth, why not let them?

  • Contrarian P||

    Why not consider that you continue to advocate for the sociological equivalent of the return of the triceratops? Your society, if indeed it ever existed in the first place, is gone. It's not coming back, even if everybody here was to suddenly agree with you. Your continued shrieking has convinced nobody and your "sources" are intellectually berefit. I took the liberty of researching a few and they are regarded in the same category as flat earthers. Creating your society would require the killing of millions, if not billions of people. I and several others have tried to engage you through reasoned argument, but you do not choose to engage in it. I regret to say I don't see the point of arguing with you anymore. Continue to pine for a world that doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did. I'm sure it'll make you happy.

  • Libertarian Leninists||

    It's not coming back

    It probably is, if you haven't noticed the beginnings of collapse. Agriculture is as boom/gloom as fiat money itself.

    The Petrodollar = the Green Revolution. Boom then gloom.

    ...require the killing of millions, if not billions of people.

    Collapse was not always inevitable. It is the consequence of agricultural life. When we decided to live in this way, only then did collapse become inevitable. The way we choose to live has consequences.

    ~Thesis #30: The future will be what we make of it.
    by Jason Godesky | 22 January 2006
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/

  • ##||

    I give up. At least I can take solice in the certain knowledge that after the coming collapse, you'll be one of the first ones to either starve to death or die from eating a poisonous plant.

  • Wishing for Another's Death||

    Your sentiments echo how civilized people regard Non-State societies all through history.

    Premise Ten: The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.

    ~Derrick Jensen
    Endgame Premises
    http://www.endgamethebook.org/.....emises.htm

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: ##,

    White Imbecile here will be the very first one to cry when one of his fingernails breaks after digging the Earth for a piece of potato.

    Us real men (and women) will simply cope behind our guns, instead of spewing useless, primitivist claptrap.

  • Pancho Villa ||

    Ah yes, fantasies of being Pancho Villa, the Lone Tortilla, taking what he wants from others.

    More evidence that libertarians are just Neo-Con wannabees.

  • ??||

    Who said anything about taking from others? I plan to shoot Bambi.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    We don't obfuscate the truth - we simply tell the truth about YOU, White Imbecile.

  • ||

    please stop feeding him. I really miss Toni

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Gee great point. I'm totally convinced. Now fuck off.

  • ||

    "At last, Americans and their leaders recognize the need to justify every dollar spent."

    Still waiting for about a trillion justifications for military spending.

  • ||

    Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied.

    Of course, if everyone's wants were being satisfied, then nobody would have bothered to take up agriculture.

    So, apparently, this statement is, how you say, false.

  • Private=Privation||

    Dean, you have no idea why agriculture got started, do you? If what you imply is true, why do primitive people hardly ever submit to agricultural invasion?

    Torture and rape satisfy needs too, at least a few peoples'.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Dean, you have no idea why agriculture got started, do you?

    Apparently, neither do you.

    If what you imply is true, why do primitive people hardly ever submit to agricultural invasion?

    It temporarily distracts them from the uncertainty of The Struggle Lifestyle.

  • Work Will Set You Free||

    Leaver (forager Non-State) society was not a struggle.

    How cool would it be to only work a couple hours a day to provide all you need?

    The Original Affluent Society (Sahlins) was one of much leisure and food security.

    Nowadays, you spend that much time in the car just going to and from a minimum of 4x more work.

    Keep up that good work, city boy. For your betters, your Masters. LOL

    Your Life As Pornography
    http://www.ranprieur.com/essays/youporn.html

  • ?||

    Only work a couple of hours a day to provide all you need?!?!? What planet are you on? One where the tropics extend from pole to pole, apparently. Try that some place where you get winter snowfalls two feet deep.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Leaver (forager Non-State) society was not a struggle.

    How cool would it be to only work a couple hours a day to provide all you need?

    It would be great--too bad it's never happened except in your Bizarro L. Ron Hubbard fantasy world.

    Seriously, you make Roger Williams look like David Hume.

  • Emporer Wears No Clothes||

    "How cool would it be to only work a couple hours a day to provide all you need?"

    If you're not a proto-Marxist, you're a Canadian Indian.
    Both useless parasites on working people.

  • ||

    Agriculture got started so that men could have a beer before they ass raped losers like White Idiot.

  • ||

    Agriculture got started so that men could have a beer before they ass raped losers like White Idiot.

  • Jacob the Deciever||

    True, Jacob.

    Agriculture likely got started because of ritual religious purposes around alcohol.

    Civilization has been a 10,000 year long drunken bender. The place is trashed, the kids abused, and it's coming to an end, like harmful addictions often do.

  • ||

    Continue to pine for a world that doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did.

    Really, What Indian?, if you are so convinced that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is so rewarding, give it a go. It wouldn't be hard: this country has millions of acres of national forest and wilderness that you could hunt 'n' gather in. I won't even hold it against you if you cheat and take some clothes, water treatment supplies, and even a tent, just to help with the transition.

  • Jebus||

    Actually, I think there are still tribes in Africa that are hunter gatherers. So he has the option of actually living in his ideal society, yet continues to use a device made possible because of the concept of private property.

  • Private=Privation||

    Who says the rapist culture gets to dictate where people live? Why can't we have a non-aggressive, non-invasive, non-occupational Non-State society right here?

  • Arrrr||

    Ummm....because some aggressive, invasive, hard working culture will take it from your lazy ass?

  • TAKER Kulture||

    At least you understand what you are.

    A TAKER.

    "The premise of the Taker story is the world belongs to man.”
    ~Daniel Quinn
    source: A Condensation of Daniel Quinn Thought
    http://www.lejournalmural.be/e.....ntent.html

  • Arrrr||

    Foragaing takes food from animals or other foragers doesn't it? Whether you take food from the land or someone else, everybody is a taker. Even you.

  • TAKER Kulture||

    The premise of the Takers' story is 'The world belongs to man.' ...The premise of the Leavers' story is 'Man belongs to the world.'

    ~Daniel Quinn
    Ishmael
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_(novel)

  • Arrrr||

    And the premise of my story is that at the base level it's a meaningless distinction. To live one must consume other life. Therefore you must constantly take. It's simply a matter of degree. Unless, of course, you're volunteering to become soylent green.

  • k2000k||

    Because lifes a bitch. Deal with it

  • Life da beyatch||

    Keep paying taxes, cuz...ya know...Life's a Bitch. I learned that on Reason.

    Like Arrrr says:
    Arrrr|8.22.11 @ 1:44PM|# Ummm....because some aggressive, invasive, hard working culture will take it from your lazy ass?

    LOL

    Obama so butch. He rule you. You no likee? Life da bitch.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Obama so butch. He rule you. You no likee? Life da bitch.


    So, the real you is projecting at last.

  • Life da beyatch||

    You civilizationist go around, like Obama, all butch and crowing how strong you are because you have taken the earth from people.

    I'm just showing you how you are just like Obama himself.

    Obama = Taker culture.
    Civilizationists = Taker culture.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That's right, bitch--and you're the first one that getting taken from, because let's face it, the closest you'll ever come to living The Hunter-Gatherer Paradise was when you were digging up worms in your grandparents backyard.

    Your great delusion is that you believe you'd actually be valued in a hunter-gatherer society. The fact of the matter is you'd get gored by a bison on your first hunt, because bison aren't scared of neckbearded nerds pining for the Garden of Eden.

  • Private=Privation||

    Enforcement of private property rights precludes living the life of a Non-State sociopolitical typology. Game wardens, sheriffs, etc., are all enforcers of civilization's privation.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: R C Dean,

    Really, What Indian?, if you are so convinced that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is so rewarding, give it a go.


    Nah, don't bother RC. White Imbecile is not talking about HIM going back to hunting-gathering - he's just another communist disguising his political preference under a sheet of nostalgic primitivism. He wouldn't be able to pass the easiest of Cody Lundin's survival courses; he would probably cry at the sight of one of his fingernails being broken.

  • Libertarian Leninists||

    Actually, you Libertarians are like your Leninists butt-buddies:

    Both want the State to wither away to either nothing or something less.

    Yet both stupidly don't recognize that the State cannot divorced from the indivisible whole of the agricultural City-State.

    Communism is just another failed manifestation of the City-State, just like Capitalism. Both fail for the same reason.

    "The USSR collapsed because of too much central control through government, the USA is collapsing because of too much central control through private wealth." ~Ran Prieur http://www.ranprieur.com/

  • k2000k||

    You do realization your last sentence contradicts itself? That which is privatized, belonging to the individual, cannot be centrally controlled, belonging to the whole.

  • L-Curve||

    In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth...

    ~Who Rules America
    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor.....ealth.html

    L-Curve (US Income Distribution)
    http://www.lcurve.org/

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands.


    You mean money?

    The White Imbecile wrestling with concepts he understands not at all.

  • Jebus||

    Don't use logic, it can't understand it.

  • goneGalt||

    I see that in both cases too much central control is in effect.

  • Galt's Primitivism||

    Correct.

    I like Galt's primitivism bent. Turn on, tune in, drop out. He had the right idea, even if based on a poor understanding of why things collapse.

    How to Drop Out
    by Ran Prieur
    April 2, 2004
    http://ranprieur.com/essays/dropout.html

  • goneGalt||

    Not a bad set of essays. Even if one chooses to life the AC-S life. I found more than a few tips for productive folk who wish to starve Leviathan.

  • Galt's Primitivism||

    Cool, glad to be of assistance.

    I'm not so far from libertarian thought - libertarians and I both recognize the violence of the State.

    We're really just one word away from agreement. Insert "City-State" or "civilization" as a more holistic definition, instead of the word "State" or "government," and I agree with libertarians. Example:

    The leviathan civilization, that monster devouring the earth in this century, is in the throes of death. – Llewellyn H. Rockwell

    Civilization can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. – Ludwig von Mises

    The great non sequitur committed by defenders of Civilization, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of Civilization. – Murray N. Rothbard

    They forget that Civilization lives at the expense of everyone. – Frédéric Bastiat

  • CE||

    Several Republican presidential candidates, including Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, have taken what sounds like an uncompromising stand. They've signed on to a plan sponsored by a group called Strong America Now to eliminate the federal deficit by 2017 without tax increases.

    Ron Paul would balance the budget in the first year of his first term. No waiting for a balanced budget amendment. No waiting for 2017.

    If Congress didn't pass his budget (which is likely), he would veto theirs if it wasn't balanced.

  • Trig||

    Ok.. so they just won't pass a budget like they're doing right now... but you're right about one thing. Yet another Reason article dismissing Ron Paul. Associating him to Bachman and Santorum? Really?

  • ||

    White Indian has got to be the most sucessful troll since ... I dunno ... Edwin?

    I can't believe you guys are actually arguing with him.

    He's not exactly a spoof, but I don't think he is "real" either.

  • White Indian||

    A troll posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages; i.e., abortion in a blog about sculpture. My posts are neither inflammatory, extraneous, nor off-topic. They are quite to the point of libertarian thought.

    So, the adherents have to argue, because I so successfully use scholarly empirical observation to undermine their most cherished economic and philosophical fantasies.

    My inductive thinking from empirical data beats their carefully crafted, yet flimsy deductive syllogisms every day.

    All one has to do is check their premises - without a penchant to "blank-out."

  • Lol||

    Sorry dude, but the only thing you've beaten is your own meat. Mental masturbation at it's finest. A true legend in his own mind. Lol.

  • libertarian dog catcher||

    We're gonna win the next big election to change the world...fap,fap,fap,fap

  • ||

    An August Economist/YouGov poll found that 56 percent of Americans said we can bring spending under control without reductions in Social Security and Medicare. Only 24 percent admit what every fiscal expert knows.

    I dunno. I truly expect that the universe of "every fiscal expert" would probably include hacks like Ezra Klein.

  • ||

    An August Economist/YouGov poll found that 56 percent of Americans said we can bring spending under control without reductions in Social Security and Medicare. Only 24 percent admit what every fiscal expert knows.

    I dunno. I truly expect that the universe of "every fiscal expert" would probably include hacks like Ezra Klein.

  • ||

    An August Economist/YouGov poll found that 56 percent of Americans said we can bring spending under control without reductions in Social Security and Medicare. Only 24 percent admit what every fiscal expert knows.

    I dunno. I truly expect that the universe of "every fiscal expert" would probably include hacks like Ezra Klein.

  • ||

    This keeps happening ... how do I end up with so many duplicates?

  • قبلة الوداع||

    THANK U

  • ||

    We'll only get serious about government spending when we see what it costs each and every one of us. We need a single tax to replace all federal sources of revenue. A flat tax on income would probably run in excess of 50%. Then we'd see the price of the "free lunch".

  • Blue sky||

    Welfare, economic growth, deficit, the relationship between these three interdependent. Unfortunately, being downloaded in the growing deficit, the economic slowdown to pressure bending the.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement